Some Thoughts on ‘Intelligent Design’

Although the teleological argument, or ‘argument from design’, for the existence of a Creator has a long history, going back at least as far as William Paley, the ‘Intelligent Design’ (ID) movement is of much more recent development.

In contrast to young-earth creationism, which is willing to privilege the (supposed) teachings of the Bible in questions of origin over against the (supposed) teachings of modern science, ID proponents accept the conventional scientific view on the age and origin of the cosmos, and on evolutionary processes generally, but postulate that direct divine intervention is required not only at the beginning of the process but at particular points during it as well.

Proponents of ID include Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Philip Johnson.  They focus on the notion of ‘irredicible complexity’.  The argument is that evolutionary processes on their own cannot explain complex, multi-component organs such as the eye, or organelles such as the bacterial flagellum.  Each of these structures consists (just as a mouse-trap does) of a number of components which, on their own would serve no purpose and therefore could not have appeared by evolutionary development.  They cannot be explained apart from reference to a superintending intelligence.

Craig, Strobel, Wilson, Denison, and Hitchens debate God’s Existence

You’ve got to hand it to Christopher Hitchens.  Such is his self-confidence, and perhaps his disdain for the ‘opposition’, that he is prepared to take on all-comers when it comes to debating religion.  Oh, and it must help his book to sell as well.

In March of this year Hitchens took on not one, not two, not even three, but FOUR Christian apologists at the same time.  Of course, he comes out fighting, and if he was feeling a little bruised by the end he is too wily a campaigner to let it show.

Actually, I found this debate one of the more interesting that I have come across.  Hitchens seemed reasonably sober, and at times was almost charming.  The Christians were unfailingly courteous towards him, and he seemed genuinely touched by that.  (Even evangelicals have manners.  Sometimes.)  There were some nice touches of humour on both sides (like when someone referred to Hitchens being thrown into a den of lambs.  Hitchens had a quip of his own in reply to that).

Watching the English do Religion

Kate Fox, in her book Watching the English (Hodder, 2004, pp 353-357), offers a fascinating account of the ‘rules’ underlying English behaviour.  The book is full of witty and insightful observations.  After all, Fox writes as a trained anthropologist (which she defines as a being a professional ‘nosey parker’).  She talks engagingly about how we English converse about the weather, the way we approach humour, the rules that govern our behaviour regarding driving, work, dress, sex, and so on.

‘Religious’ rules are subsumed under the heading of ‘rites of passage’.  This, she says, is because ‘religion as such is largely irrelevant to the lives of most English people nowadays.’  All that remain for most people are the rites connected with ‘hatching, matching, and dispatching’.

The Existence of God and the Problem of Suffering

The problem of suffering presents one of the most stubborn difficulties in the way of belief in the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God.  Briefly, the argument runs as follows:-

1. Evil and suffering exist
2. If God were all-loving, he would wish to prevent evil and suffering
3. If God were omnipotent, he would be able to prevent evil and suffering
4. Evil and suffering are not prevented. Therefore, there is no such thing as an all-loving, all-powerful God

Suffering and the Existence of a God of Love

John Blanchard discussed this in his book Does God Believe in Atheists?  The argument against the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God may be summarised as follows:-

1. Evil and suffering exist
2. If God were all-loving, he would wish to prevent evil and suffering
3. If God were omnipotent, he would be able to prevent evil and suffering
4. Evil and suffering are not prevented. Therefore, there is no such thing as an all-loving, all-powerful God

Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?

Last Tuesday, 21st October, a debate was held between Professor Richard Dawkins and Dr John Lennox in Oxford’s Natural History Museum.

An earlier debate between the two of them can be downloaded here, and a talk by Lennox can be downloaded here.

The subject of the recent debate was Has Science Buried God? – echoing the title of a recent book by Lennox.

God, Evolution, and Charles Darwin

Next year sees a major Charles Darwin anniversary: 200 years since his birth, and 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of the Species.

Darwin’s religious views were (or became) those of a muddled agnostic.  In a recent article in Times Online, Nick Spencer offers Ten Surprising Things Darwin Said About Religious Faith:-

Has science got rid of God?

This is the title of a book by John Blanchard, published in 2004 by Evangelical Press.  In one chapter of the book, Blanchard confronts the frequently-expressed view that science has rendered religion in general, and Christianity in particular, redundant as a means of explaining the world.

Top Audio Downloads on Atheism and Christian Faith

Here are some of the mp3s that I have found helpful on the atheism/Christian faith debate. 

• Francis Collins – “The Language of God”.  Point of Enquiry’s website is committed to a sceptical approach to all things religious, but here offers a thoughtful interview with Collins, former Director of the Human Genome Project and a Christian believer.
• Richard Dawkins – “Science and the New Atheism” (Point of Enquiry)
• John Lennox – “God and Richard Dawkins”.  ‘Bethinking’, an excellent Christian apologetics website, hosts this engaging lecture.
• Alister McGrath – “Has Science Eliminated God?”.   Helpful lecture from McGrath.
• Alister McGrath – “Is God a Delusion?  Atheism and the Meaning of Life”.  Alister McGrath is well clued-up on Dawkins, and provides a balanced assessment.
• Dawkins/Quinn debate
• Dawkins/McGrath debate
• Hitchens/McGrath debate – Christopher Hitchens is too nasty, and Alister McGrath too nice, for this debate to work very well.  But worth a listen.
• Hitchens/D’Souza debate – Dinesh D’Souza a capable Catholic apologist, and matches Hitchen’s pugilistic style quite effectively.
• Joanna Collicutt McGrath – joins the Godpod team to discuss Dawkins’ The God Delusion, among other things.
• David Robertson - discusses his book ‘The Dawkins Letters’ in which he gives a robust rebuttal to Dawkins’ arguments for atheism in ’The God Delusion’.

Dawkin’s God

I’m not particularly interested in points-scoring in debate.  Intelligent discussion is not really advanced by searching through the utterances of an opponent until you can trip them up over something that may have slipped out in an unguarded moment.

Nevertheless, I would like to draw attention to a fascinating exchange between the well-known scientist and atheist Profession Dawkins and Dr Francis Collins (former director of the Human Genome Project and a Christian).

The debate is summarised in Time magazine and the relevant bit is found here.  Dawkins was asserting that we are ‘profoundly ignorant’ about questions such as, “Why am I here?”, and “What happens after we die?”

Interviewer: “Could the answer be God?”

Dawkins: “There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.”

Collins: “That’s God.”